CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 22, 2001
7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Montgomery
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Councilmember Gustafson, who arrived shortly thereafter, and Councilmember Montgomery.
Councilmember Lee moved to excuse Councilmember Montgomery. Council-member Grossman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
In response to Interim City Manager Larry Bauman, there was Council consensus to cancel the February 5 workshop for lack of agenda items.
Councilmember Gustafson arrived at 7:34 p.m.
Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, noted that the terms of four of the members of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee are expiring. In addition, she said the alternate member of the committee has served for two years. She discussed a schedule under which Council would consider and make new appointments to the committee by the end of March.
Mr. Bauman mentioned that Council has previously designated an ad hoc subcommittee to review applications and make recommendations for appointments.
Mayor Jepsen noted that the terms of Planning Commissioners and Library Board members expire during even-numbered years. He said this schedule allows newly-elected Councilmembers the opportunity to participate in the appointment process. He expressed concern that newly-elected Councilmembers must wait more than a year to participate in the appointment of members to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee. He acknowledged the "huge burden" of attending to the expiring terms of all City boards and commissions during one year.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom volunteered to participate on an ad hoc subcommittee. Mayor Jepsen said he would talk with Councilmember Montgomery about the possibility of her participating on the subcommittee as well.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Ransom moved to approve the agenda and requested that Council change item 7 (e) to be item 8 (c). Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the agenda, as amended, was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to approve the consent calendar, as amended. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 11, 2000
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of January 8, 2001
Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 8, 2001
Approval of expenses and payroll as of January 4, 2001 in the amount of $628,448.13
Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Act Agreement with King County for Commute Trip Reduction services in the amount of $5,235
Ordinance No. 259 reclassifying an administrative support position in the City Manager’s Office and the Department of Planning and Development Services, and amending the 2001 Proposed Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 254
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Motion to direct staff to proceed with a scope to undertake a sub-area planning effort in the area between 175th and 192nd along Aurora Ave.
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, and Kirk McKinley, Planning Manager, reviewed the staff report.
Mr. McKinley reviewed the issues that sub-area planning between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue could address. He went on to address three other potential locations for economic development related sub-area planning and the issues related to each: Aurora Square and vicinity; Echo Lake bounded by Aurora Avenue, 192nd Street and 200th Street; and Ballinger Commercial District, north and south of Ballinger Way from Interstate 5 to 25th Avenue NE. He noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommend the area between 175th and 192nd Street along Aurora Avenue as the focus for 2001 sub-area planning.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Cynthia Wills, 18205 Fremont Avenue N, said she had expected City economic development efforts to focus on Aurora Square and Aurora Village as "economic hubs." Noting several unresolved issues related to the area along Aurora Avenue between 175th and 192nd Streets (e.g., the Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail alignment), she said economic development in the area seems premature. She mentioned that neighboring residents are concerned about traffic and inadequate infrastructure.
Mayor Jepsen said the unresolved issues related to the area between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue represent "one of the arguments" for a sub-area plan for the area. He asserted the need for sub-area planning for Aurora Square and vicinity as well. Noting the City’s limited resources, he said he was "torn" about which of the two areas the City should focus on.
Referencing the minutes of the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, Councilmember Lee noted a lack of in-depth discussion of the other potential locations for sub-area planning.
Mr. Stewart said Economic Development Coordinator Jan Briggs will soon present information to Council regarding Aurora Square. He mentioned that efforts already underway at Aurora Square will occur even without City sub-area planning this year. He explained that the land-use issues related to Aurora Square are simpler than those related to the area along Aurora Avenue between 175th and 192nd Streets. He noted the greater uncertainty of the land uses along Aurora Avenue between 175th and 192nd Streets as part of the staff rationale for recommending the area for 2001 sub-area planning.
Councilmember Lee commented that in the minds of Shoreline businesses and citizens the City has yet to deliver on Aurora Corridor planning. She said the Westminster-Aurora Square area "is much more scalable." She advocated it as a demonstration project for citizens and businesses. She asserted the need to take advantage of the momentum created by Central Market. She said she would like "to capture the opportunity of how to position the Interurban Trail."
Councilmember Ransom noted the prediction of the previous Economic Development Coordinator that the combination and development of the ten parcels at Aurora Square could take as long as ten years. Given this time frame, Councilmember Ransom said the City should not delay sub-area planning for Aurora Square to complete sub-area planning between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue first. He advocated a major City emphasis on Aurora Square coincident with the construction of the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project. He said the City could otherwise lose the opportunity for retail development at Aurora Square. He asserted that major retail stores are more likely to locate at Aurora Square or Aurora Village than along Aurora Avenue. In addition, he noted that focusing now on Aurora Square would provide "a little more time" for the businesses between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue to adjust.
Councilmember Gustafson agreed with the comments of Councilmembers Lee and Ransom. He acknowledged that the area between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue is a priority. He advocated attention to Aurora Square coincident with construction of the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project. He recommended the following prioritization of the four potential areas for economic development related sub-area planning: 1) Aurora Square and vicinity; 2) approximately 175th to 192nd Streets (both sides of Aurora Avenue); 3) Echo Lake bounded by Aurora Avenue and 192nd and 200th Streets; and 4) Ballinger Commercial District (both sides of Ballinger Way from I-5 to 25th Avenue NE).
Councilmember Grossman said sub-area planning for Aurora Square should have little impact on the location of the Interurban Trail. By contrast, he asserted the importance of sub-area planning to determining the location of the trail along Aurora Avenue between 175th and 192nd Streets and to addressing the anxiety of small business owners. He said redevelopment is more likely to occur sooner at sites along Aurora Avenue between 175th and 192nd Streets than at Aurora Square. He advocated the prioritization of the four potential areas in the order presented by staff (pages 49 and 50 of the staff report).
Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted that the City must do "some planning" concurrently for both Aurora Square and the area along Aurora Avenue between 175th and 192nd Streets. He agreed with Councilmember Grossman that Shoreline small business owners are most anxious about City handling of the latter area. He advocated the prioritization presented by staff.
Mayor Jepsen noted his long-standing concern about the impacts of the redesign of Aurora Avenue and the design of the Interurban Trail on adjacent areas. He asked the following questions: 1) How does the Interurban Trail crossing of Aurora Avenue help or deter development of Aurora Square? 2) How does vacation of Westminster Way help or deter development of Aurora Square? and 3) What is the timing of the Aurora Corridor and the Interurban Trail Projects relative to adjacent areas?
Mr. McKinley said current planning efforts regarding the Aurora Corridor concern the vacation of Westminster Way. He noted the following questions in particular: to which adjoining properties will the vacated property go? how should the triangle-shaped property be tied into the larger, 20-acre site? how should access to Aurora Square from Aurora Avenue via 155th Street work and how will changing the access affect operations at Aurora Square? He mentioned the need to determine "a circulation plan" within Aurora Square. He said staff will present information to Council in early March about City economic development efforts with the owners of the private properties at Aurora Square. He indicated the possibility of a privately-initiated master plan for the site.
Mr. McKinley noted "big question marks" regarding the area along Aurora Avenue between 175th and 192nd Streets: the Seattle City Light right-of-way—how to underground power lines and what to do with current uses in the right-of-way; what to do about Ronald Place; the interrelationship of the Interurban Trail and the myriad rights-of-way and private properties in the area; what to do about Midvale Avenue.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. McKinley said sub-area planning between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue would address whether, and where, to vacate Midvale Avenue. He acknowledged Councilmember Ransom’s concern about maintaining access to parcels along Midvale Avenue. He said the City must study alternate access and conduct a traffic analysis in its consideration of vacating Midvale Avenue.
Councilmember Ransom noted that the City has funding for the north and south ends of the Interurban Trail in Shoreline. He said he understood the City would at least continue the basic planning and design of the Interurban Trail. Mr. McKinley mentioned the four conceptual designs for the alignment of Aurora Avenue and the Interurban Trail between 175th and 185th Streets that staff presented at the November 20, 2000 Council workshop. He said a sub-area plan would assess which option works best to support the land uses.
Councilmember Gustafson questioned the time line of the Aurora Corridor Project. He commented that if construction north from 175th Street will not begin for many years the City may have time to complete sub-area planning for Aurora Square first. Mr. McKinley said staff does not know when the City will have the funding to construct the second phase of the Aurora Corridor Project. He also pointed out that Council has not specifically directed staff on which section of Aurora Avenue the next phase will focus.
Mayor Jepsen suggested that staff develop the sub-area plan scope, study area and time line for the area between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue for presentation to Council at the same meeting in March at which it will address economic development activities at Aurora Square. He said Council can then decide whether it is sufficiently satisfied with efforts at Aurora Square to proceed with sub-area planning between 175th and 192nd Streets along Aurora Avenue. He restated Council concern that the first phases of the Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail Projects support the future of Aurora Square and vicinity.
Councilmember Lee asked if economic development efforts at Aurora Square could make sub-area planning for the location unnecessary. Mr. McKinley said staff may "come back with a master plan, as opposed to a sub-area plan." He explained that this depends, in part, on the scope of area that Council would want a plan to address.
Mayor Jepsen said he would want the plan to address more than just the Aurora Square site. He advocated a plan that takes both sides of Aurora Avenue into account. Councilmember Gustafson agreed.
Councilmembers Ransom and Gustafson supported Mayor Jepsen’s direction to staff. Councilmember Grossman did as well, but he went on to note the numerous obstacles to redevelopment at Aurora Square.
Councilmember Lee favored the larger scope that Mayor Jepsen advocated for planning in the vicinity of Aurora Square. She reiterated the opportunity of how to position the Interurban Trail.
(b) Motion to approve the "Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures and Guidelines Manual"
Anne Tonella-Howe, Aurora Corridor Project Manager, reported that staff distributed copies of the draft "Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures and Guidelines Manual" at the January 10 Shoreline Chamber of Commerce meeting. She received feedback from Terry Green, the Chamber of Commerce President and a member of the Aurora Improvement Council. Ms. Howe related Ms. Green ’s comment that the business community appreciated the extra effort the City made to address business community issues (e.g., the extra benefits for displaced businesses that choose to relocate in Shoreline). Ms. Howe said Ms. Green identified "grandfathering signs" as a remaining issue of concern. Ms. Howe explained that the City will negotiate compensation for the removal of non-conforming signs and that property/business owners may apply to Planning and Development Services for variances to retain such signs.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Russ McCurdy, Owner, Aurora Cold Storage and Seattle’s Finest Exotic Meats, "applauded" the City for exceeding minimum federal requirements in preparing the draft manual. He restated the concern of Aurora business owners that the 12-foot sidewalks proposed for the Aurora Corridor Project are excessive.
(2) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, said he looks forward, as the owner of a business on Aurora Avenue, to seeing the City honor its commitment to give strong consideration during the implementation of the Aurora Corridor Project to the impacts of the project on businesses. He advocated that the City also address the construction phase "very critically" to insure that businesses do not suffer.
Mayor Jepsen stated that the following motion, postponed from the January 8, 2001 meeting, was on the table: Councilmember Gustafson moved, and Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded, to approve the "Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures, and Guidelines Manual."
Councilmember Ransom thanked Council and staff for distributing the draft manual to the business community and for providing the extra time for review and feedback. He said he received input from representatives of the business community. He noted the outstanding concern regarding "grandfathering signs."
A vote was taken on the motion to approve the "Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures and Guidelines Manual", which carried unanimously, and the manual was approved.
(c) Ordinance No. 260 adopting revisions to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plan
Human Resources Director Marci Wright reviewed the staff report.
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved approval of Ordinance No. 260 adopting revisions to the City of Shoreline Classification and Compensation Plan. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom reiterated that of 24 classifications that are benchmarked, only four were below market. This indicates the City is mostly on target. However, he questioned how the City then linked these four classifications to eleven more. He asked if a point factor system was used in reviewing how to determine the relative value of one classification to another.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Wright said the original classification and compensation plan included "benchmark" classifications (those compared to pay practices of other jurisdictions) and other classifications linked as percentages to the benchmark classifications. For example, she noted that the Administrative Assistant II position is a benchmark classification, that the Administrative Assistant I position is set ten percent lower and that the Administrative Assistant III position is set ten percent higher. She explained that the recent salary survey simply carried forward the relationships between classifications established in the original plan.
Councilmember Ransom identified the Administrative Assistant classifications as his primary concern. He stated that the Administrative Assistant I is an entry-level clerical position. He said other businesses find the pay range for the position very high.
Councilmember Ransom referred to the Administrative Assistant II as the primary position in the series. He said the recommended revision would result in a 7.5-percent salary increase, on top of the cost-of-living adjustment that all City employees received January 1, 2001. He stated the salary range for the Administrative Assistant II as $31,700 to $38,500. He said "other, comparable businesses" are "rather astounded that our pay standards are that high."
Continuing, Councilmember Ransom said some organizations use a compensation system with a minimum, maximum and mid-point for each range, and "almost nobody gets to the maximum." He compared this to the City plan in which "almost everybody gets to the maximum." He asked how staff performed comparisons involving the other type of system. Ms. Wright explained that, consistent with the original study, staff asked the jurisdictions in the City’s designated labor market to report the maximum salary that would normally be achieved through progression through the range.
Councilmember Ransom said the State includes a comparison with private industry in its salary survey. Ms. Wright said the City’s designated labor market only includes public sector jurisdictions. She mentioned that one or more of these jurisdictions may include the private sector in its compensation analysis.
Councilmember Ransom said private businesses concerned about the difference in the City’s pay standards need to suggest that Council change the City labor market to include private businesses.
Councilmember Lee said Council chose a labor market of public sector jurisdictions when it established its policy.
Mayor Jepsen said the City competes with the Shoreline School District for a number of its positions. He suggested that the City may want to consider adding the District to the list of jurisdictions in the City’s designated labor market in the future.
Councilmember Ransom concluded that the process staff followed in conducting the recent salary survey is very typical for a government agency; however, it can be argued that different point factor systems are more systematic and scientific and hold up better in a court challenge. He stated that criticisms that salaries for entry-level City clerical positions are high are correct. He acknowledged that staff followed the process that Council established.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve Ordinance No. 260 adopting revisions to the City of Shoreline Classification and Compensation Plan, which carried 6-0.
9. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Discussion of Proposed False Alarm Ordinance
Shoreline Police Chief Denise Pentony reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8th Avenue NW, said it is not possible to measure "how many of the so-called false alarms are actually interrupted burglaries." She stated that an alarm may actually be doing what it is supposed to be doing.
Chief Pentony explained that police officers only categorize a call as a false alarm if "there’s absolutely no indication of criminal activity."
Mayor Jepsen said the framework of the revised false alarm ordinance makes sense. However, he questioned whether a $75 fee for a second false alarm is too aggressive. He favored the approach of the City of Edmonds: a requirement for inspection and certification after the second and subsequent false alarms and a fine of $50 after the third response.
Councilmember Grossman agreed with Mayor Jepsen’s comments. He favored the City of Edmonds approach.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Chief Pentony did not have statistics on the number of false alarms resulting from human error versus mechanical problems. She stated that the department intends to track such data. She said the City of Phoenix, which has tracked such data, has targeted training to address the most frequent problems.
Councilmember Lee supported the inspection and certification of alarms. Chief Pentony confirmed that the City will allow exceptions for false alarms related to inclement weather.
Councilmember Ransom commented that alarms help to identify criminal activity and focus police resources. He asked if large fines for false alarms might discourage the use of alarms and necessitate higher police costs to deter crime. He said burglaries represent a large percentage of crime in Shoreline. He supported the City of Edmonds approach to false alarms as a good compromise. Chief Pentony acknowledged the value of security alarms. However, she noted that 277 locations in Shoreline had two or more false alarms in 2000. She said these problems drain police resources from other issues in the community.
Chief Pentony said burglaries are not the most common crime in Shoreline at the present time. Councilmember Ransom noted that in 1995 or 1996 it was.
Councilmember Gustafson suggested a $25 fine for a second false alarm, with increases of $25 for each subsequent false alarm. While he supported the proposed framework for the revised ordinance, he said a fine of $75-$100 seemed too harsh.
Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed concern that court costs to the City of collecting fines could exceed the amount collected. Chief Pentony mentioned a provision in the revised ordinance which makes an alarm user who goes to a hearing and loses the case responsible for the court costs as well as the fine. In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, she explained that the revised ordinance would be based on a six-month period. Deputy Mayor Hansen favored being "quite lenient" on false alarms, except in cases of repeat offenses.
Councilmember Ransom questioned the cost to the user of the alarm inspection and certification that other jurisdictions require after subsequent false alarms. Chief Pentony said the revised ordinance would require the alarm user to notify the Shoreline Police of the cause of the false alarm and the necessary corrective action but would not necessarily require an inspection and certification.
Councilmember Lee stressed that cost savings are not the only impetus for the proposed ordinance. She noted that Chief Pentony mentioned that the frequency of false alarms affects the attitudes of officers responding to alarm calls. She stated that educating alarm users is the most important piece of the proposed strategy.
Mayor Jepsen confirmed Council consensus in support of proceeding with the proposed ordinance with an emphasis on reconsidering the civil penalties.
10. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:45 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk